Fossil Fuel Hypocrisy

Foxholer

Foxholer

Blackballed
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
24,160
Visit site
Fantastic to see that there's been a 3 day 'lull' in the need for power to be generatd by (polluting) Coal generators. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34851718

However, the politicians seem to be promoting that lull as a step towards non fossil fuel power generation. Whereas, all that has happened is that the equally limited/fossil fuel 'gas' has been used to replace it! Ms Rudd wants more gas-fired stations to be built since relying on "polluting" coal is "perverse".

Or have I got it wrong? Perhaps it really simply means that lots of folk have, like me, turned their 'winter' heating off after the warmer weather!

To me, a move to 'safe' nuclear (waste launched into the sun, as opposed to dumped into oceans as now!) is the only practical option for the grid for the next several decades - with wind, and tidal supplementing. And increasing use of solar, where practical, for residential.
 
One thing I don't understand. There are currently 10's of thousands, perhaps 100's of thousands of new homes being built. Why do none of them have solar panels on them? It should be legislated so that panels are automatically part of a new build.
 
Foxholer said:
Fantastic to see that there's been a 3 day 'lull' in the need for power to be generatd by (polluting) Coal generators. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34851718

However, the politicians seem to be promoting that lull as a step towards non fossil fuel power generation. Whereas, all that has happened is that the equally limited/fossil fuel 'gas' has been used to replace it! Ms Rudd wants more gas-fired stations to be built since relying on "polluting" coal is "perverse".

Or have I got it wrong? Perhaps it really simply means that lots of folk have, like me, turned their 'winter' heating off after the warmer weather!

To me, a move to 'safe' nuclear (waste launched into the sun, as opposed to dumped into oceans as now!) is the only practical option for the grid for the next several decades - with wind, and tidal supplementing. And increasing use of solar, where practical, for residential.
Click to expand...

Foxy, ave already replied to that story online. Quite frankly am bogged off. Why did the BBC not run a story last month saying that 20% of the country's electricity was generated by coal, of which not a single cobble was produced in this country. It was shipped from all over the world. So how much CO was produced in A, burning it. And B, shipping it from all over the world.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
One thing I don't understand. There are currently 10's of thousands, perhaps 100's of thousands of new homes being built. Why do none of them have solar panels on them? It should be legislated so that panels are automatically part of a new build.
Click to expand...

On the original story on the Beeb site, the highest supported comment says exactly the same thing.
 
The other problem we currently face is the wealthy/lefty NIMBY crew objecting to fracking. If we have to rely on fossil fuels until we face up to funding new nuclear power stations then we either accept purchasing gas from abroad, which puts us in a very subservient situation or get on with making the best of our own resources.
 
Don’t get me start on this..

Yes gas is cleaner than coal but you are right, it’s not much of a shift when compared to solar or wind.

Gas is and will be instrumental in our move away from coal but it is not a renewable resource and must be phased out and replaced with renewable resources like wind and solar. Especially if we want to keep using it to heat our homes and cook out food...

Photovoltaics on our roofs, batteries storing that energy for the evening and night, electric cars charged from a public source of renewables... one day... one day.

The nasty downsides to all those batteries and other electronics isn’t a viable counter as coal is just so so so bad in this day and age.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
One thing I don't understand. There are currently 10's of thousands, perhaps 100's of thousands of new homes being built. Why do none of them have solar panels on them? It should be legislated so that panels are automatically part of a new build.
Click to expand...


Solar panels on roofs are probably considered inefficient against solar farms. Modern house being built are so much more energy efficient it is probably not cost effective either. If you are looking at big savings in heating costs then Ground Source or Air source heat pumps are a better way to go but there's probably not enough space for them in a modern build.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
One thing I don't understand. There are currently 10's of thousands, perhaps 100's of thousands of new homes being built. Why do none of them have solar panels on them? It should be legislated so that panels are automatically part of a new build.
Click to expand...

Got a 10 being built on the edge of out village, all of which have solar panels on them. So, thankfully is not quite none, but I hope we get enough sun in Wales to make it worth while!
 
IanM said:
Got a 10 being built on the edge of out village, all of which have solar panels on them. So, thankfully is not quite none, but I hope we get enough sun in Wales to make it worth while!
Click to expand...

Good to hear but I suspect that is a small, local style builder. We are having big estates, 200-700 homes being built, by the big boys, Bellway, Persimmon, Barratt etc and none of them have them on. They need to forced into doing this as that would make a difference. If they all have to do it then the price of panels should drop and the additional cost on the house is the same for all.
 
The whole environmental debate is full of contradictions.

I like the Lexus (and several others) advert for their 'hybrid' cars - they may have some batteries and electric motors but the ONLY re-fuelling option is to use petrol !!
 
Foxholer said:
Fantastic to see that there's been a 3 day 'lull' in the need for power to be generatd by (polluting) Coal generators. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34851718

However, the politicians seem to be promoting that lull as a step towards non fossil fuel power generation. Whereas, all that has happened is that the equally limited/fossil fuel 'gas' has been used to replace it! Ms Rudd wants more gas-fired stations to be built since relying on "polluting" coal is "perverse".

Or have I got it wrong? Perhaps it really simply means that lots of folk have, like me, turned their 'winter' heating off after the warmer weather!

To me, a move to 'safe' nuclear (waste launched into the sun, as opposed to dumped into oceans as now!) is the only practical option for the grid for the next several decades - with wind, and tidal supplementing. And increasing use of solar, where practical, for residential.
Click to expand...

What would happen if the launch vehicle exploded on the launch pad or as it was going into orbit? With modern rocket technology, I know this is not as likely as in the pioneering days, but it still happens. Imagine the scatter of nuclear waste from that! I'm not sure a good disposal method exists yet.
 
There was a program on the BBC a couple of years ago (?) showing how difficult it is to get permission to build a wind park or a hydrosomething (wave) station. The 'only' solution for environmentalists is to use less energy, but that isn't going to happen.
 
larmen said:
There was a program on the BBC a couple of years ago (?) showing how difficult it is to get permission to build a wind park or a hydrosomething (wave) station. The 'only' solution for environmentalists is to use less energy, but that isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Especially when we're all going to driving electric cars in 20 years time...
How are they going to generate the power needed to recharge 40 million cars..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top